Links to other subreddits must use NP format ("np" in place of "www").

/r/MensRights strongly supports principles of free speech. People posting here are sharing their opinions. Opinions will not be removed, but actions may (see above rules). Please do not hesitate to send us a modmail if a user is violating the rules.

its easy to think men are privileged when you ignore the vast amounts of men that are completely sinking that no one cares about.
80+% of suicides
80+% of homeless population
99% of prison population
99% of workplace deaths

its honestly becoming hard to read threads like this but its easy to see why these problems are never discussed. Women completely control the social dialogue on issues like this and are invested in shutting down mens issues and elevating their own status as much as possible. Equality is irrelevant and a shield used for them to get what they want.

Edit: You're also blatantly wrong about the prison population. According to the bureau of justice statistics in 2013, 18% of incarcerated individuals were female. Whoever is giving you your info is full of shit.

Wrong again - and blatantly so. Incarceration and "correctional population" are not the same thing, and the gender division is telling.

From your own source, women are 18% of those in the correctional system. They make up 25% of those on probation, however, and only 7% of those actually in prison. In other words, /u/Sam_Hoidelburgh exaggerated the male prison population by 6%, whereas you exaggerated the female proportion by 257%.

No, if you look at Figure 3 and surrounding info in your link to the stats, the 18% is for total "correctional population", which includes non-custodial probation and parole, as well as local jail and prison. So the 99% bit of hyperbole re prison population isn't too far off the actual ~94% figure.

Exactly right, except dying at work is objectively worse than taking a slightly lower​ paying job. So not only do men feel some obligation to put their life in danger for money, but there is political movement supported by top executives, politicians, and widely accepted in culture that we need to make the rewards the same between sexes despite this massive disparity in risk.

If certain people had it their way men would continue to put in 5 hours extra work a week, put their lives in 20x as much risk and still get paid the same.

Of course a woman should get paid the same if she takes similar risks.

Most countries have laws dictating a man and woman in the same job should earn the same. That's the problem that HAS been solved.

Now? The complaint is "we don't have enough women CEOs" or "we don't have enough women engineers", while they conveniently forget industries like mining, electrical and manufacturing. All male dominated (mostly because they tend to demand a high risk for those who CAN lift heavy items let alone those who can't). Yet, I don't hear too many people saying we should hire more female factory labourers.

The pay gap does exist. As an average. But with the amount of SUPER high earning men, it's not a surprise. People like Gates push that gap so incredibly far out it's really not funny. But it's not called gender inequality. It's called rich people earning lots of money.

Yet, with the 1% owning like 99% of the wealth, and most of them being men, how is the pay gap only 20 or so percent? Because at the level 99% of people work, we all earn roughly the same, at least compared to others in our industry.

I do not have exact figures, but it is worth noting female homeless are at a huge risk for sexual assault. In fact, sexual assault is a large reason for homelessness among women. source Also, homeless people with children receive housing priority as well. I think we should really be talking about increasing resources for homeless people overall, rather than arguing without properly cited statistics. Even the original image doesn't give us a real sense of what's going on with homeless people. I would also remind everyone 40% of homeless youth are lgbt source. If you are concerned about homelessness in general please, please, please donate to your local shelters, because they are in need of help. I work in a hospital and see many homeless men and women come through. In general, they have low self esteem and think few non-homeless people care about them. Edit: " Of [female] victimized respondents, over
half of the respondents (55.9%) had been
raped"
Edit: If people would like to help, you could donate to the National Coalition for the Homeless or if you would prefer to help more homeless men give to a veteran's org, because more homeless veterans are male.

I also find it worth noting that males are at drastically increased risk of being the victim of literally every other violent crime there are statistics for. Homelessness increases the risks of every single crime by a lot.. some by magnitudes. It would reason then that men's risk of being the victim of every single violent crime increases drastically, probably sexual assault too. The number of men's shelters are in the single digits in most countries.

I'm not saying women don't deserve help, but what you just did was do what everyone always does whenever this shit is brought up. Maybe women deserve priority due to the unique risks associated with homelessness for them, but.. they already have priority. Why is it that women keep getting larger and larger slices of the pie when men suffer just as much?

Females have the global prority (from a pure evolutionist point of view, because it works as a reproductive system).

This translates into our culture as well. Sure, females are "naturally" more the target of rape. Sure, there is the Male domination stuff, but males die far more in wars, take most of the risks (travel far away for instance), compete harshly the most for resources, die to impress females (even without knowing such as extreme sports), die far more in violence stuff, and male loosers are far more in big shit than female loosers, who can find far easier compassion everywhere and because females are more prone (it's deeply engrained, perhaps genetically) to be "socially empathic" than men.

A total of 78.3% of homeless women in the
study had been subjected to rape, physical
assault, and/or stalking at some point in their
lifetimes. Of victimized respondents, over
half of the respondents (55.9%) had been
raped, almost three-quarters (72.2%) had
been physically assaulted, and one-quarter
(25.4%) had been subjected to stalking. These
rates of victimization were much higher than
the national average found in the National
Violence Against Women Survey.

By comparison, when interviewers surveyed 91
homeless men for comparison, they found that
14.3% had experienced completed rape, and
86.8% had experienced physical assault. Over
90% of male respondents had experienced
physical assault, rape, and/or stalking at some
point in their lives.

If they used the definition of sexual assault consistent with VAWA, it excludes most forms of female perpetrated rape thus excludes most male victims.

If you are concerned about homelessness in general please, please, please donate to your local shelters, because they are in need of help.

Until you people clean house and stop creating a hierarchy of victims, nope.

Seems like a religious cult, mostly focused on treating men like they need rescuing from themselves - anger management, substance abuse, turning them into 'productive' members of society (instead of the losers they are right?). And at the end of it all, they get a nice fat bill for $1,200.

yup, and theres a 3 year waiting list where i live to get into one - my aunt and uncle were recently homeless with their 13 year old daughter. Social services wouldnt help because my aunt was married, shelters would only take my aunt and my cousin, and they still had to schedule 3 weeks out for a single night. they wound up staying in a hotel when they could, and living in a van otherwise because everywhere they turned they were told they needed to get separated(literally divorce each other) in order for them to get any real help, and my uncle would still not have received any help.

there are no shelters for men, there is no help, ive dealt with the government and shelters trying to help my own family. Its fucking abhorrent.

This has been turned on its head by people saying that they identify as transgender, therefore they cannot be turned away on basis of sex. On one hand it removes the legitimacy of people who are transgender, but on the other hand these are people who have no other alternative and a safe bed is just beyond that door.

I lived in 3 women's shelters when I was a kid, I'm pretty sure the reason they didn't allow men in was because people's abusive husband's would try get in (same reason some are disguised to look like apartments that are out of space) so it was for women and children to make sure a guy couldn't come in and kill one of them. Btw not fully sure if it is the same kind of shelter you are talking about but we did have to stay there because we had no money or place to stay and my dad was trying to kill us.

You should look into a remarkable women called Erin Pizzey, who opened the world's first shelter for women who were victims of domestic violence. She allowed men in her shelters to normalise having non-abusive men around. They also mentored the kids.

Feminists had harassed her incessantly (feminists, the likes of whom had attempted to get her involved in a bombing campaign), and subsequently one of her dogs got shot. There is no smoking gun, no confession, but the police were worried enough at the time about her safety to insist on giving her an escort. So feminists essentially chased her out of the country and banned men from 'their' refuges. Effectively indicting all men, when the reality is that specific men (and women) were to blame for the DV.

Women on the other hand get shelter immediately, regardless of space. Also, shelters that take women and children will exclude all men from entry when women and children are staying there.

Hi there, I work in a homeless shelter and have volunteered in the past. The amount of times I receive calls from women looking for shelter that have already been turned down by the few resources in the area they can stay is sobering. I know two of the places available to women do have waiting lists. Also, we do have two shelters that allow men to stay in them even if their are women and children staying in them.

Also, we don't have a waiting list for men, we have on average 30 empty beds, or more, at any given time.

It doesn't fit the narrative, I know, but I like to support my stances with facts.

Just out of curiosity, are the "men's shelters" just called "shelters"? That was the case in my city for a long time. The "shelters" only allowed men and women and kids would go to the "women's shelter". They changed it in the past decade so that the women's shelter became the "family shelter" (for parents and kids), and the "shelter" allowed both men and women.

Formerly homeless woman here. There was no extra space for women in my entire metro area. Even so, the stories of abuse, theft, assault (yes even in the women's only shelters) kept both men and women like me away. It was safer for me to sleep alone in my locked car. I don't know what would have happened to me if I didn't have a car. I would have likely been raped. I was stalked repeatedly.

While completely forgetting about the mother fucker that just took an rpg so you can sleep peacefully at night.

It's not just that, there's the direct comparison of boys and men who lose their sons and dads too (and occassionally husbands I suppose). Hillary Clinton thinks that if my dad is killed overseas that my loss is less significant than my sister's. God I fucking hate her for saying that.

When voter turnout for midterm elections is abysmally low and a president is elected by ~25% of the population eligible to vote, then blaming the 2-party system is really stupid. America has a record of having nearly the worst voter turnout of all developed countries.

I literally heard that exact same phrase used in a feminist college textbook from the 1990s. It said that 75% of AIDS victims are male, but that women were the primary victims since they were the mothers, wives, and sisters of victims. Apparently this was a phrase that's been in use for a while.

The asteroid would hit men first because we are taller, but we are used to suffering. Being hit by a giant red-hot hunk of iron would be a welcome relief from the drudgery of working 70 hours a week to feed a family you never get to see, and pay for a house you don't get to live in.

Was homeless twice as a teen; found out real fuckin' quick that shelters and aid orgs give preferential admission to women and women with children in tow. An able-bodied male was just expected to join the fucking Army or something. So that's what I did :|

Male privilege is having to literally risk your life in Shitfuckistan for some asshole oil baron's profits just to have a chance at getting your life on track and one day going to college and getting a real job.

Tell me again about your oppression. Literally the entire system is falling over itself to help you.

I am. With the VA healthcare system I was able to get medicated for the (nearly crippling) ADHD that I had to spend the entire six years of active duty trying to work around.

See, the Army, they consider any psychiatric disorder, even a "harmless" one like an attention span of a butterfly, to be equivalent to full on hallucinatory schizophrenia, so the way the regulations are set up, if you're under active treatment for any mental disorder your ass is out on medical discharge.

So I had to deal with that. Which was fun.

But once I got out I started medication (Strattera/atomoxetine) for my ADHD and my life turned around in a fucking hurry. Got employed. Got a girlfriend.

For years before the Army I had stubbornly tried to just "beat" ADHD, like cancer or something, and persevere over it through sheer will, but what I was really doing was hopping around on one leg instead of getting a wheelchair or one of those sweet prosthetic legs.

ADHD is never going to not be a part of my life, because it's in the way my brain itself is structured. Something in there is broken, and we don't know how to fix it, but we can at least help it with the right chemicals at the right dosage. And with that medicine my life is finally back on track. I'm finishing up my Bachelor over the next couple of years, and after that I have a few leads on getting my foot in the door with my preferred career field (digital forensics).

Literally, I went from not being able to remember what I was told to the point that I had to carry a notepad and pen around with me in the Army to substitute for an almost complete lack of short-term memory, to working towards a career where detail orientation and accuracy are paramount (because if I fuck up a report that is later used as evidence in court the wrong guy could go to jail or walk free).

That's how much of a difference it makes.

I'm doing a lot better now, but it took several very lucky dice-rolls to get here. I could've been mugged or killed while homeless. I could've died in Iraq. These aren't things that had a small chance of happening, they were substantial risks.

I somehow made it.

I don't think people should have to rely on luck, as I have, just because of a Y chromosome they had no say in being born with.

Quite the opposite. ADHD is a terrible name for the disorder. Long winded posts like this are very common with ADHD, it's actually one of the signs looked for during diagnosis: hyperfocus (but not always on the things you want to, just things your brain finds interesting).

Yep. Bingo. It's fucked up that the only socialized safety net that we have in this country is volunteering to be a thug for Exxon and other multinational interests.

Even then half the time you have to practically start a Twitter shaming campaign to get the healthcare you were promised.

I'm lucky that all I need from the VA is a medication they can throw at me in 2 minutes and tell me to go away. If I needed real care, like a prosthetic or something, or had a traumatic brain injury, it'd be a lot harder to get seen.

Homeless person here. I have never seen a homeless woman who was forced to sleep outside. These 'homeless' women all have automobiles or shelters available with room, the homeless men are usually the only ones sleeping rough.

Heard about a shelter for domestic violence victims a few months back. A victim, male, was turned away because all the women felt uncomfortable. Having no friends or family in the area he slept in the park that evening.

I'm almost got kicked out of a field trip when I was a cub scout. We were touring a home (run by a really creepy man) who housed women and children. I was willing to accept the fact that he may just not have had the ability to house both men and women, and that he chose the side he believed needed it more. Then he dropped this little nugget:

Women are allowed to bring their male children, but once the boy turns 16 he has to leave.

16? Seriously? On top of that he required male children submit to physical discipline, and told us they would be expected to assist with more than the women. He told us all this with PRIDE, and I got in trouble for saying I didn't think it sounded fair.

In Canada, a man set up a Male DV shelter. Feminists and SJWs harrassed the fuck out of him for it, lobbied the gov to not support his shelter and rallied around the country saying hes a misogynist. He ended up shutting down the shelter because of lack of support and funds, he went into bankruptcy and then committed suicide.

As a trans woman and a victim of domestic violence(back when I was on the masculine side of things.) the way abused men in society are treated is out right shameful. They are treated like the abuser, instead of the victim. And when I needed help there was none available for men. The closest thing that they had was a group for abusers to reform. There are literally 100s of programs for women. Not a single one for men. It's fucking shameful.

It's still something that makes me very emotional. And I speak out about it a lot.

It is rare that Domestic Violence Shelters accept men. In my case, the shelter put me in a hotel under an anonymous identity until the shelter ran out funding (I'm living with PTSD and can't work because of it). The shelter simply does not have money to assist men, and the entire budget they had for men for the year was used putting me in the cheapest/skeeziest motel where my Xbox One was stolen, never to be returned.

They ran out of funds before I got housing assistance, and for about a week I slept in my car (with my Service Dog in the middle of winter) in the back of the Domestic Violence Shelter (they said it would be safer there than some random parking lot due to local police response to the shelter and they had cameras and always someone on staff at the shelter 24x7).

The night person on duty there let me come in after curfew one night to stay in the living room. Broke the rules, but I was very appreciative of it, and I had been at the shelter long enough during the days that I got to know most of the women and kids there. The kids liked seeing my dog too. They knew enough about my situation too, so they felt probably more comfortable around me.

But anyway. One of the victims had a story done on her by one of the local news stations because of how severe it was and whatnot, but the shelter manager who really helped me a lot made it a point to talk to the reporter about my case (keeping things confidential, obviously), and she wanted to make it a point to convey that it is a lot harder for men for so many reasons, and there aren't as many resources available for men, etc., and she ended up mentioning that in the news piece (highlighting male victims, not just women).

It was really tough for me, still is for a lot of reasons, dealing with PTSD and other issues, but I know the shelter I went to really helped me out as much as they could, but it's a cold hard fact there just simply is not same support for men as there is for women. I mean, I had help and I spent a week sleeping in my car with my Service Dog in the middle of winter and had my Xbox One stolen that was my primary coping method for PTSD. There are plenty more men out there that need help, and it is something people should keep in mind, DV shelters get A LOT of support from local businesses (Target donates clothing, Starbucks donates expired (but still good) food), but shelters typically have a separate budget to assist men (e.g. putting them in a cheap hotel since they can't stay in shelter), it's usually a small budget, and can be used up quickly.

I think I've posted this before, but there was a victim in Canada, and he got his life turned around and ended up starting the only shelter in Canada for male victims. Unfortunately, he struggled to get funding and support, and he ended up losing the shelter. After he sold the shelter, he committed suicide in the garage. Here is a news article about it.

When I was 13 years old, my mother and I went through a period of homelessness while we were in Kansas City. After our money ran out, we couldn't stay in the hotel we were staying in anymore and we found a homeless shelter which would allow us to stay for only 30 days. Well we found an apartment and the night before we were to move in, we had to move out of the 1st shelter and stay in another. Well this was a shelter for women, and since I was 13 at this time and they almost didn't let us stay there. Eventually after my mom argued with them for about an hour they did, but we had to be out by 8 a.m. and I wasn't allowed to leave my room (I had to get escorted to the bathroom). Basically I was a threat because I was a 13 year-old boy. Fun times. My mom told me later that if I had been any older they wouldn't have let us stay.

Nah, that's just his fault for not working hard enough. He's obviously just too lazy to actually go and get a job. Nevermind the fact that 2/3rds - 3/4ths of homeless people have mental illness: you just gotta walk that shit off. I was depressed for a month or two back in college when Jenifer cheated on me (fuckin' bitch); and I was still able to pull through with a 3.4 GPA that year.

We had a homeless guy that would hang out by the dealership I used to work at. We got a salesman one day (they're like revolving doors at dealerships) apparently this salesman knew the guy. He was schizophrenic who went off his meds and his family had been looking for him for months.

Not a homeless person but in Orlando, FL (we have a lot of homeless here) it's extremely easy to get on the internet. First, all of our libraries offer internet access but we also have a crap-ton of open wifi access points all over town. On top of that, you can get a cheap android phone for $25 and just connect to open wifi using that. I've bought a few of these that I use for remote location projects (i.e. gps tracking or telematics) running a rooted android phone that I have wired up to a longer battery and a few other doodads. The whole setup costs me $25 to start and around $10/mo for about 200mb of data and however many minutes they come up with. I can totally see a homeless person doing that, especially since you can get free minutes/service through a few of the local government aid providers.

Any public library has access to the internet for free. Not to mention that homeless does not mean completely broke and without possessions. He could even have a job and a phone with still no place to live.

The homeless population is highly variable.
Chronic homelessness is defined as being homeless for more than a year, or temporarily homeless for the 4th time in 3 years... and it's relatively uncommon compared to short-term homelessness.
The US Department of Housing and Urban Development estimates 2,000,000 homeless per year... but only about 112,000 fit the definition of chronic homelessness. Far more accurate local studies suggest it's a bit higher, but this is pretty close.
Oh- and about 45% of them have jobs (and that's just official, taxable jobs... off book work is estimated to bring the homeless employment rate in line with the national employment rate)- just no home, in between homes and relying on the YMCA or shelters to get them through the gaps.

For those of us who have experienced short-term homelessness, libraries and the YMCA are how you tread water, and look for a way out.

Internet access is not only a luxury item anymore- most jobs require applications be done online. Getting your first job after becoming homeless requires you have a cell phone to call the place or have them call you for shifts. Using prepaid cells with data or at least wifi can be very inexpensive and truly essential to getting a job, then getting a place to live

Today's society? Men have always been seen as disposable. For example, look at the history of wars and see which of the two genders gets sent to go die in a ditch in some morass in the middle of bumfuck nowhere.

Men are always going to be seen as more disposable, because on a purely reproductive level (a level so deeply rooted it informs a lot of higher functions) men are more disposable.

Now that says nothing about individual worth, but society cares little for that anyways. What past societies figured out - and which we will eventually once the costs of feminist idiocy grow high enough to collapse the largesse necessary to spawn it - is that part and parcel of men's disposability is men's greater utility as well. Men make most of everything, repair most of everything, and defend most of everything.

Men used to receive a concomitant amount of respect and legal authority due because of their greater responsibility, again in societies that worked with nature and not against it.

Feminism and the larger equality cult has destroyed that, and will continue to do so until it starves itself out, is replaced by a culture that does not operate on such false precepts, or a combination of the two.

Men used to receive a concomitant amount of respect and legal authority due because of their greater responsibility, again in societies that worked with nature and not against it.

Some men did. I feel like you're romanticizing the past. There has always been poor, unsuccessful, powerless men who were ignored by society and left to die if they couldn't fend for themselves. Through most of history they were probably the majority.

The article is trying to drum up sympathy for the groups mentioned by pointing out how they are over-represented.

Aboriginals (38 per cent), people who identify as LGBTQ2+ (13 per cent) and veterans (11 per cent) are over-represented in the homeless population.

Instead of continuing this trend to up sympathy for men by saying

...and men (77 per cent) are over-represented...

they choose instead to frame it in the context of women being homeless because they know that people view men as disposable and would shrug at the 77% statistic, but people would be more upset about women being being homeless, thus they focus it on them, instead. This is blatantly apparent in the fact that they gray out the men in the infographic.

Yes, the statistics are accurate, but the presentation of it hints at misandry by continuing the trend of focusing on the hardships of women, even when men are clearly the ones at a disadvantage.

Statistics can be true and presentation of statistics can be tone deaf.

For example, if I listed the number of white people shot by cops and called it a travesty that we were shooting that many white people, it'd be both true and tone deaf to the fact that white people probably have the least per-capita deaths via cops of any race (well... maybe not Asians. Not sure. I digress.).

I would like to know the context this graphic was given in, if it was discussing the homeless problem in the US, if it was discussing the homeless problem among males in the US, or something along those lines. But, I'm just here from the front page, so I probably shouldn't break the circle jerk.

Edit: Thank you for the links! The article does seems rather innocuous; rather than specifically talking about the female homeless population, it talks about their homelessness crisis as a whole. Which is what I figured.

Now, even these two versions are slightly different. Slightly different publication dates, but the one that follows through with the "Sixty-one percent" and has the same quote marks doesn't even mention women in the article.

The other article, which the one pictured here seems to be quote, since it put their words in quote, does say that '23% of homeless are women' (not 1/4), but it is listing marginalized groups and puts aboriginals and veterans ahead of women, even though they are a lower percentage.

Now, there may be a print copy of this that somebody has and can share, because I know that online version get updated and changed, and are formatted differently, but it seems like somebody is trying to get the MRA community riled up about a doctored document.

Just a comment re: the glass bottom. I believe that the rules differ from state to state. Here in Cali, Los Angeles specifically, there is a huge homeless population. A homeless child (excuse the expression) trumps an adult, always. A woman with a child trumps men. However, there are a cornucopia of shelters in L.A. that co-exist; men's only, women and children only, women no children, etc. There are more men that are homeless. There are more women that remain with their children even after collapsing into homelessness. There are more male veterans, but more women get raped on the street. Some shelters have rules about capacity as mandated by the Fire Marshal, so if the rule is get to intake by 8:00 A.M., it's a hard number, not a suggestion. And lastly, in terms of getting help, there are programs for people of all kinds that assist individuals and families getting back on their feet. It generally would provide vouchers for immediate housing, but even if that runs out, a Case Manager or Social Worker can help get SSI, SSDI, GR, job training, clothes and medication with absolutely no discrimination. Homelessness is a huge problem for human beings, so one quarter of beds going to women is not inappropriate, to me.
Source: Me. Social Worker in L.A. and, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (H.U.D.). They do a homeless census every year in L.A. and provide funds that are allocated by need.The department is likely to be eviscerated by the Trump administration.

It's a picture of an out of context statistic clearly cropping out the information in the rest of the article. There are lots of situations where it is appropriate, relevant, even necessary to display the information in this way - most of which aren't sexist at all. What if the article is about women in population demographics as a whole? What if it's about minority groups in homelessness? What if it's about little known facts of homelessness? I don't see why anybody would freak out over statement of a fact without any knowledge of the reason the fact is being stated.

Aboriginals (38 per cent), people who identify as LGBTQ2+ (13 per cent) and veterans (11 per cent) are over-represented in the homeless population. Women make up 23 per cent of the homeless population.

...which means they're under-represented in the homeless population, while men are over-represented.

I sincerely appreciate your "What if's", your attempt to cull yourself from any potential groupthink, but the article was generally about homelessness, it quoted several statistics about the make-up of homelessness, but it avoided saying that 3/4's of the homeless are men.

Beyond this, the perceived lack of recognition of the ways in which modern society harms men is a sore-spot in any men's rights movement. For such people, I can see how galling it would be for the over-representation of men amongst the homeless to be presented as a hardship for women.

The article is trying to drum up some support and empathy - always a worthy and thankless task. They do that by talking about the kinds of people that evoke sympathy from the general public. White men are not on that list. Women are.

So: they've taken a stat that shows the over-representation of men in the homeless community and inverted it to be about women because they want people to care about the homeless and people care more about women than men. (Who wouldn't. They're wonderful.)

Regardless of your politics, there's information here. The inversion is information (upon which I've posted a possible interpretation). The relative value of men is information. The tack of your response, and mine, is information. This is how we speak to ourselves, and while the individual voice is priceless, we also need to listen to the subtext of social conversation.

Accepting and using only those pieces of information which support our current world view is tribalistic and inherently corrosive to a modern society. It's inhumane to simplify all of humanity in order to satiate the demands of our ego, picking out the facts that we don't like until all we have left is a very precarious Jenga tower.

I, in no way, dispute the fact that the article is questionable in its use of the statistic. All I take issue with is the presentation of the statistic in this post, completely lacking relevant information from the article.

Except less than 1 in ten people are gay so it means gay people are more likely to be homeless which is a bad thing.

1 in 4 people aren't women, 1 in 2 are, which means men are 3 times more likely to be homeless than women. If you don't see that as a problem... and it's sexist because it's highlighted to say how women are suffering and how awful that is, when they are suffering significantly less in this instance.

It would be like saying "1/10 of homeless people are gay" if gay people are say, 30% of the population. Sure it shows hat they're homeless, but not at a greater rate than their percentage of the population

If you read the article - they're simply reporting the results of the survey:

Aboriginals (38 per cent), people who identify as LGBTQ2+ (13 per cent) and veterans (11 per cent) are over-represented in the homeless population.

Women make up 23 per cent of the homeless population.

The only real gripe I have is that it would have been more appropriate to include men in that list of over-represented groups of people. I'm surprised an out-of-context infographic inspired so much outrage and attention.

Does it not matter what the article is about here? What is the context? If it is about say...pregnancy prevention, feminine products, or female sexual assault as relating to the homeless then the 75% that are male have no place in the discussion.

Aboriginals (38 per cent), people who identify as LGBTQ2+ (13 per cent) and veterans (11 per cent) are over-represented in the homeless population.
Women make up 23 per cent of the homeless population.

Has no slant suggesting that women are more in need and I suspect there were a few more infographics in the print article that OP is leaving out to push a narrative.